CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 24 juin 2016

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .sA8776625 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt }   Communicated on 24 June 2016   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 54882/10 Fabijan GRIGOLOVIČ against Lithuania lodged on 14 September 2010 STATEMENT OF FACTS The applicant, Mr Fabijan Grigolovič, is a Lithuanian national who was born in 1941 and lives in the village of Bajorai. A.     The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. On 29 July 2000 the applicant asked the Lithuanian authorities to restore his property rights to 9.5705 hectares of his father’s land in Vilnius by giving him a new plot of land. On 16 August, 18 September and 19 October 2000 the national authorities restored property rights to the applicant’s father’s land to third parties. On 22 January 2001 the national authorities informed him that part of the land was unoccupied and could have been returned to him. On 30 July 2002 the applicant changed his initial request and asked his property rights to be restored in natura . On 28 February 2003 the national authorities informed the applicant that the land was State redeemable and asked him to choose another way to have his property rights restored by 1 April 2003. On 26 March 2003 he informed the authorities that he wished to receive a new plot of land of equal value. On 22 January 2008 the national authorities informed the applicant that he had been added to the list of people to have their property rights restored. On 30 April 2008 the national authorities informed the applicant that the land was State redeemable, part of it was State forests and the other part had already been given to third parties. They also refused to provide him with information on whose property rights had been restored. The applicant started court proceedings and on 1 August 2008 the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court obliged the authorities to provide him with the list of people whose property rights had been restored to the land in question. On 5 February 2009 the authorities adopted a decision to restore applicant’s property rights to 0.18 hectares of his father’s land and informed him that his property rights to the remaining 9.3805 hectares would be restored at a later date. The applicant started court proceedings and asked the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court to declare the national authorities’ decisions to restore property rights to his father’s land to third parties unlawful, to award him 1,422,788 Lithuanian litai (LTL, approximately 412,068 euros (EUR)) in respect of pecuniary damage and to oblige the authorities to restore his property rights to a certain plot of land. The latter request was later withdrawn. On 10 April 2009 the court held that the applicant had not lost the opportunity to restore his property rights. It was also possible that he would be given a more valuable plot of land, therefore it was decided that he had not suffered pecuniary damage. The applicant appealed. On 15 March 2010 the Supreme Administrative Court held that the domestic legislation in force at the time did not allow for the restoration of land in natura because the applicant did not have any buildings on the land in question. The court also held that he had requested the land to be returned in natura only after the property rights to it had already been restored to third parties. The court also did not establish that the domestic authorities had acted unlawfully, which was a precondition for compensation in respect of pecuniary damage. It therefore refused to satisfy his complaint. B.     Relevant domestic law and practice Article 5(2)(1) of the Law on the Restoration of Citizens’ Ownership Rights to Existing Real Property ( Piliečių nuosavybės teisių į išlikusį nekilnojamąjį turtą atkūrimo įstatymas ) of 1997 established that property rights to land that until 1 June 1995 was an area of the city were to be restored by giving the plots of land to the citizens who had buildings on them. Article 12(1)(3) provided that land that until 1 June 1995 was an area of the city was State redeemable unless it had buildings on it. Article 6.271 of the Civil Code provides that damage caused by unlawful actions of institutions of public authority must be compensated by the State, irrespective of any fault on the part of a particular public servant or other employee of the public authority institution. On 2 April 2001 the Constitutional Court held that limiting the return of land in natura , if it was vacant and consequently of no particular societal value, was in breach of Article 23 of Constitution, which protects the right to property. COMPLAINT The applicant complains under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention that his property rights to part of his father’s land have not been restored and no compensation has been paid.   QUESTION TO THE PARTIES   Has there been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention on account of the fact that the remaining part of the applicant’s property rights has not been restored and he has not been paid any compensation?